I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - HarrisCezar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

When related prior art material disclosures are not made in the patent application and are not continuously intimated to the patent office thereafter, such a conduct is considered inequitable and the patent application is to be declared invalid and unenforceable. Incase of prior art materials, disclosures should be made in the patent application and as such should be communicated to the patent office as and when available to the patent applicant

Facts of the CaseThe present case involves two manufacturers of synthetic ropes, twines, yarns and various rope products such as gabions. The first of them are the appellants/patentee Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. and the other, the respondents M/S Techfab India who have been accused of infringing the appellants' patent on a certain “Synthetic Rope Gabion” (referred to as SRG in short). The judgment doesn’t explain what exactly are the features of SRG but for a vague mention that it is a gabion which uses synthetic rope, as opposed to a metal wire, as the meshing element that forms the outer body of the gabion (neither is the specification of the patent available on any of the patent websites). Accordingly, the appellants claim that the use of synthetic rope imparts greater flexibility to the gabion, which helps overcome the disadvantages associated with a rigid metal frame.

According to the appellants, an agent of theirs in Gujarat informed them of the infringement of their patent by the respondents early in October 2005 and on the 17th of the same month, an infringement suit along with a prayer for ad-interim relief was filed in the District Court, Surat, which was granted ex-parte the next day. Following this, the respondents filed for an appeal in the Gujarat High Court against the injunction, exactly a week after the grant of the injunction. The following day, the injunction was vacated by a Single Judge, with the observation that “in case the respondents feel that the impugned gabions are different than (from) the patented SRG invention of the appellant, the respondents were free to manufacture and sell the impugned gabions”. The respondents were then directed to maintain accounts of such manufacture and sale.Consequent to the filing of a counterclaim by the respondents for revocation of the patent, the suit was transferred to the High Court (under proviso to s.104) along with an application by the appellants to quash the Single Judge’s order.